DOCSLIB.ORG

Lt to Psych Sciences on Lewandowsky 4 Rev2013.Docx

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

FRIENDS OF SCIENCE SOCIETY P.O.Box 23167, Mission P.O. Calgary, AB Canada T2S 3B1 1-888-789-9597 E-mail: [email protected] May 1, 2014 Association for Psychological Science BY FAX AND REGISTERED MAIL 1133 15th Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 USA Contact Information +1 202.293.9300 (phone) +1 202.293.9350 (fax) ATTN: Eric Eich, Editor - Psychological Science Dear Mr. Eich, RE: Request to retract Stephan Lewandowsky et al (2013): "NASA Faked the Moon Landing - Therefore, (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science"http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/03/25/0956797612457686.abstract Friends of Science Society respectfully request that the paper "NASA Faked the Moon Landing - Therefore, (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science" be withdrawn on grounds of violating the spirit and intent of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) ethical guidelines specifically “1.5 champion freedom of expression.” A review of Stephan Lewandowsky’s published papers reveals that “NASA Faked the Moon Landing - Therefore, (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science” is the only professional paper by him, to that date in time, with an inflammatory title. As experts in the area of social psychology, it would seem to have been self-evident that, in the contentious world of climate science, such a title would immediately subject any dissenting climate scientist or individual to public humiliation - thus violating the COPE principle of championing freedom of expression from the outset. However there are other grounds upon which this paper should be disqualified, in our opinion. We dispute Lewandowsky’s findings in that his claims about climate change evidence are incorrect. Lewandowsky et al claim in their abstract: “Although nearly all domain experts agree that carbon dioxide emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a platform for denial of climate change, and bloggers have taken a prominent role in questioning climate science.” These statements are incorrect. 1) Lewandowsky makes an incorrect assumption of + 90% (typically cited as 97%) consensus on climate change science (specifically Anthropogenic Global Warming). Many domain experts disagree. The cited references within the Lewandowsky study are shown to be far below a 90% consensus. In the Andregg et al (2010) survey only 66% agreed with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change declarations on climate change or its causes; 44% disagreed and signed public documents to that effect. In the Doran & Zimmerman (2009) opinion poll only 2.4% self-selected climate scientists (qualifications unknown) explicitly state agreement with two opinion questions that have no empirical parameters about climate factors. See: http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf 2) In September of 2013 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC) admitted there is a hiatus in global warming of some 16+ years and that despite a rise in carbon dioxide, warming had stagnated. Likewise, these climate experts state in the Sept.27, 2013 Technical Summary on pages 114 and 115 that there is low confidence in any extreme weather trends based on the evidence, which disputes the Somerville (2011) claim that climate patterns are changing. These “Key Uncertainties” are included as the last pages of this document for your convenience. Original source see:http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf 3) Dozens of leading, expert scientists (climate scientists, economists, IPCC expert reviewers) use internet blogs to communicate their findings to the public such as the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change,http://www.nipccreport.org/index.html (presents in an appendix the names of 31,478 American scientists who have signed a petition saying "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."), World Climate Report - Patrick Michaels http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/about-us/ , Climate Audit - Steve McIntyre http://climateaudit.org/ , YourEnvironment.ca - Ross McKitrick http://www.yourenvironment.ca/ , Roger Pielke. Jr http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/ , Judith Curry http://judithcurry.com/ , Sciencebits -NirShaviv http://www.sciencebits.com/ , and many more. These dedicate scientists use the ‘common man’s’ blog to communicate the complexities of their area of expertise in a timely, readable way for the public and interested colleagues. A social psychologist like Lewandowsky is unqualified to pass judgement on any climate science blogger like these, and the manner and style of his paper lumps ‘all’ bloggers in as ‘rejectionists.’ Referring to Lewandowsky’s footnote 2 he suggests that the motivation behind climate science blogs is for the ‘...use of rhetoric to create the appearance of debate where there is none.’ Based on the level of scientific expertise of the authors of 2 the blogs noted above, one cannot say there is no debate about climate science or that bloggers are merely using rhetoric. 4) Judith Curry is one such expert scientist who also has a blog. She testified to the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Jan. 16, 2014 that carbon dioxide is likely not a main factor in climate change based on current evidence, therefore Lewandowsky’s premise is faulty. See: <http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=07472b b4-3eeb-42da-a49d-964165860275> 5) The Dutch government is calling for an overhaul of the IPCC to include natural factors, not just focus on human factors affecting climate change - something many dissenting scientists have been calling for over many years - indicating that these demands are not ‘rejection’ or ‘denial’ or the ravings of a lunatic blogger - but that there are serious problems with the IPCC and its scientific assessments. See: <http://www.knmi.nl/research/ipcc/FUTURE/Submission_by_The_Netherlands_on_the_futur e_of_the_IPCC_laatste.pdf> Friends of Science Society is a climate science review organization. We are a group of professional earth and atmospheric scientists who have been reviewing climate science literature since 2002. This past year we were alarmed to read of the Cook et al (2013) claim that there is a 97% consensus on climate science. Therefore we undertook to deconstruct the main surveys cited in support of this statement - that of Oreskes (2004), Doran & Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al (2010) and Cook et al (2013). We found that the claim of a 97% consensus is based on math manipulations and that there is no consensus of the kind. In fact, in 3 of the 4 studies (2 of which Lewandowsky cites in his paper as evidence) there are only 1-3% of participants who explicitly agree with the IPCC declarations on Anthropogenic Global Warming; one study cited by Lewandowsky claimed 66% consensus, though terms, definition and parameters were not constant with other studies. Most participants held no position whatsoever. (See attached graphs). Though we cannot speak to the details, we note that other researchers are also calling for a retraction of the Lewandowsky et al work on other grounds. Steve McIntyre writes "Lewandowsky Ghost-wrote Conclusions of UWA Ethics Investigation into 'Hoax'”. http://climateaudit.org/2014/03/24/lewandowsky-ghost-wrote-conclusions-of-uwa-ethics- investigation-into-hoax/ Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick are probably best known for their coauthored work deconstructing the infamous “Hockey Stick” graph which alleged that there was very little temperature variation in the past thousand years before 1900 followed by a sharp temperature rise during the 20th century, represented by the ‘blade’ of the Hockey Stick graph. McIntyre and McKitrick found errors in the computational methods that loaded too much weight on a small set of biased tree ring proxies and understated the uncertainty about 3 historical climate variability. This effectively eliminated the previously well documented Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. This meant the graph showed extreme and unusual warming since the 1900’s, when in fact there have been numerous, cyclical cold and warm periods, as is clear from the Greenland Ice Core analysis below. The “Hockey Stick” deconstructed by McIntyre and McKitrick is no longer used by the IPCC. McIntyre's post Anatomy of the Lewandowsky Scam gives the basic information above the fake responses to Lewandowsky's survey used in the paper. http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/08/lewandowsky-scam/ The post Lewandowsky’s Fake Results shows that after removing the most grotesque fake responses, "Only one “skeptic” in the revised dataset purported to believe the Moon conspiracy, while 4 “warmists” purported to believe in it. (All 5 responses are probably fake.)" http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/13/lewandowskys-fake-results/ There are other concerns about the Lewandowsky methods. In this article, Lewandowsky’s Fake Correlation, McIntyre shows that the responses from two scammers who claim to believe in all conspiracy theories contributed up to 100% of the Lewandowsky's reported correlations between the conspiracy theories. These statements may be useful in your review, though they are supplemental to our request that the
Recommended publications
  • Andrew Montford's the Hockey Stick Illusion Is One of the Best Science

    Andrew Montford's the Hockey Stick Illusion Is One of the Best Science

    Andrew Montford‘s The Hockey Stick Illusion is one of the best science books in years. It exposes in delicious detail, datum by datum, how a great scientific mistake of immense political weight was perpetrated, defended and camouflaged by a scientific establishment that should now be red with shame. It is a book about principal components, data mining and confidence intervals—subjects that have never before been made thrilling. It is the biography of a graph. I can remember when I first paid attention to the ―hockey stick‖ graph at a conference in Cambridge. The temperature line trundled along with little change for centuries, then shot through the roof in the 20th century, like the blade of an ice-hockey stick. I had become somewhat of a sceptic about the science of climate change, but here was emphatic proof that the world was much warmer today; and warming much faster than at any time in a thousand years. I resolved to shed my doubts. I assumed that since it had been published in Nature—the Canterbury Cathedral of scientific literature—it was true. I was not the only one who was impressed. The graph appeared six times in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)‘s third report in 2001. It was on display as a backdrop at the press conference to launch that report. James Lovelock pinned it to his wall. Al Gore used it in his film (though describing it as something else and with the Y axis upside down). Its author shot to scientific stardom. ―It is hard to overestimate how influential this study has been,‖ said the BBC.
  • Better Science - Where Is the Recent Warming?

    Better Science - Where Is the Recent Warming?

    Better Science - Where is the Recent Warming? Two Friends of Science members published the following letters in the Readers’ Forum section of the September 2012 issue of “The PEG Magazine”, the official publication of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA). HERE'S SOME BETTER SCIENCE Re: Online Denials Not Well Founded, by J. Edward Mathison, P.Geol., and Let's Get Back to Applying Science, by Joe Green, P.Eng., Readers' Forum, The PEG,April 2012. A return to the appropriate application of science would be most welcome. But how do we define Science? Since the 17th century a scientific method with accepted standards has developed. Researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of observed phenomena and design experimental studies to test them. Fundamental is the principle of full transparency, with data and methodology archived and shared so results can be verified and reproduced independently by other scientists. This has not been the pattern for the climatologists in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who have shown a total disregard for these procedures by withholding data, refusing to reveal or discuss methodology, and essentially ignoring evidence contrary to their hypothesis. PhiI Jones of the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.'s University of East Anglia has not been forthcoming. Despite numerous freedom of information requests and enquiries, data and its associated methodology have not been fully released for independent due diligence. This is notwithstanding that this is the temperature data set presented as primary evidence of late 20th century warming, and the basis for draconian policy and taxation measures.
  • (November 12, 2011) Brought to You by SEPP ( the Science and Environmental Policy Project

    (November 12, 2011) Brought to You by SEPP ( the Science and Environmental Policy Project

    The Week That Was: 2011-11-12 (November 12, 2011) Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project ################################################### Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report S. Fred Singer, Craig Idso, Robert M. Carter – August 29, 2011 Published by Heartland Institute Summary: http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/FrontMatter.pdf Chapter Review and Full Report http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/2011report.html ################################################### Quote of the Week: “We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert.” J. Robert Oppenheimer. ################################################### Number of the Week: 20,000 ################################################### THIS WEEK: By Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) Trust but Verify: The above quote from Robert Oppenheimer highlights a desperately needed attitude in today’s society – including among academics and scientists. It is always too easy to go along and not question even when questions arise. Investigative reporting, such as Donna Laframboise’s exposé of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), needed to be done years ago. Often presidents of universities are chosen more for the business acumen than other qualities. They may treat certain programs as profit centers and may prefer to ignore issues arising within these programs. This week, the President of Penn State University was fired for failure to properly supervise one highly successful program, its football program.
  • Radio Canada's

    Radio Canada's

    Friends of Science friendsofscience.org climatechange101.ca Press Release November 26, 2019 Radio Canada’s “Décrypteurs” Climate Fail (CALGARY) Friends of Science Society have issued a letter to Radio Canada condemning recent coverage of the CLINTEL “No Climate Emergency” declaration as poor and biased journalism. On Nov. 23, 2019, fact-checkers at Radio Canada’s “Décrypteurs” claim to have deconstructed the list of scientists who issued the Climate Intelligence - CLINTEL “No Climate Emergency” declaration to the UN. A larger group of CLINTEL signatories and expanded scientific explanation was presented on Nov. 20, 2019 to the European Parliament, as reported by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Radio Canada’s fact-checking team claim few of the CLINTEL signatories are climate scientists, but this is a term which only came into use about 2005. It is irrelevant in the complex field of climate where physicists, atmospheric scientists, geoscientists, astrophysicists, oceanographers, volcanologists and chemists among others, all have input to and understanding of climate change science. Radio Canada relies on information from the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). IFCN certified “Climate Feedback” as an accurate source to evaluate such climate news, but it is really a group of self- interested scientists who issued a disrespectful and fact-fail review of the CLINTEL ‘No Climate Emergency” document, as detailed in this Friends of Science rebuttal. While the “Décrypteurs” claim some CLINTEL signatories are not scientists, it is ironic that CBC/Radio Canada regularly report on Al Gore’s climate proclamations and give headline coverage to Greta Thunberg, neither of whom are climate scientists and both of whom are engaged in a global carbon offset promotion scheme.
  • BLACK SWANS by Dr Gerrit J. Van Der Lingen (© 2015)

    BLACK SWANS by Dr Gerrit J. Van Der Lingen (© 2015)

    BLACK SWANS By Dr Gerrit J. van der Lingen (© 2015) Christiana Figueres is a Costa Rican diplomat. She was appointed Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on May 17, 2010. She succeeded Yvo de Boer. The UNFCCC organises annual climate conferences, called COPs (Conferences Of the Parties to the UNFCCC). The first one was held in Berlin in 1995. The last one (COP20), at the time of writing this essay, was in Lima, Peru, 1-12 December 2014. Christiana Figueras chaired that conference. In her opening address she said, among other, the following: “The calendar of science loudly warns us that we are running out of time”, and “Here in Lima we must plant the seeds of a new, global construct of high quality growth, based on unparalleled collaboration building across all previous divides. History, dear friends, will judge us not only for how many tonnes of greenhouse gases we were able to reduce, but also by whether we were able to protect the most vulnerable, to alleviate poverty and to create a future with prosperity for all”. Maurice Newman, Chairman of the Australian Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council, wrote an article in The Australian newspaper of 8 May, 2015, titled: “The UN is using climate change as a tool, not an issue”. About Christina Figueres he wrote: “Why then, with such little evidence, does the UN insist the world spends hundreds of billions of dollars a year on futile climate change policies? Perhaps Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s framework on Climate Change has the answer? In Brussels last February she said, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.” In other words, the real agenda is concentrated political authority.
  • Kyoto Accord

    Kyoto Accord

    Kyoto Accord A reproduction of the 2002 debate solicited by APEGGA Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta Published in “The PEGG” journal and on-line Between Matt McCulloch, P.Eng., is with the Calgary office of the Pembina Institute for Appro- priate Development, in a lead technical role in the institute's Eco-Solutions Group. Dr. Matt Bramley is the Pembina Institute's director of climate change. And Dr. Sallie Baliunas is deputy director at Mount Wilson Observatory and an astrophys- icist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Dr. Tim Patterson is professor of geology (paleoclimatology) in the Department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University. Allan M.R. MacRae, P.Eng., is a Calgary investment banker and environmentalist. Views expressed are not necessarily those of any institution with which they are affiliated. This paper reflects the scientific view of Friends of Science Society whose scientific advisors in 2002 included Dr. Sallie Baliunas and Dr. Tim Patterson. THE KYOTO ACCORD Editor's Note: The PEGG solicited the following exchange on the Kyoto Accord and the science behind it, in an effort to provide two divergent views of the debate. The Point side is in favour of the science behind Kyoto and its implementation; the Counterpoint side dis- putes the science and doesn't agree that the accord, as it currently stands, is an accepta- ble way to address climate change. Each side received an advance copy of the other's argument, allowing them to write rebuttals, which also appear here. ________________________________________ POINT BY MATT McCULLOCH, P.ENG. and MATTHEW BRAMLEY, PhD Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) are rising rapidly as a result of human activities, mainly the burning of fossil fuels.
  • SUPERIOR COURT of the DISTRICT of COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION MICHAEL E. MANN, PH.D., Plaintiff, V. NATIONAL REVIEW, INC., Et Al., D

    SUPERIOR COURT of the DISTRICT of COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION MICHAEL E. MANN, PH.D., Plaintiff, V. NATIONAL REVIEW, INC., Et Al., D

    SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION ) MICHAEL E. MANN, PH.D., ) ) Case No. 2012 CA 008263 B Plaintiff, ) ) Judge Natalia Combs Greene v. ) ) Next event: Initial Scheduling Conference NATIONAL REVIEW, INC., et al., ) January 25, 2013 ) Defendants. ) ) DEFENDANTS COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE AND RAND SIMBERG’S SPECIAL MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO THE D.C. ANTI-SLAPP ACT Pursuant to the District of Columbia Anti-SLAPP Act of 2010, D.C. Code § 16 -5502(a) (“the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act” or “the Act”), Defendants Competitive Enterprise Institute and Rand Simberg (“CEI Defendants”) respectfully move for an order dismissing the Complaint’s claims against them with prejudice. As set forth in the accompanying memorandum, the CEI Defendants’ commentary on Plaintiff Michael E. Mann’s research and Penn State’s investigation of his research is protected by the D.C Anti-SLAPP Act because it is unquestionably an “act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest,” D.C. Code § 16-5502(a), and Mann cannot demonstrate that his claims are “likely to succeed on the merits,” D.C. Code § 16-5502(b). In the event that this Motion is granted, the CEI Defendants reserve the right to file a motion seeking an award of the costs of this litigation, including attorneys’ fees, pursuant to D.C. Code § 16-5504(a). WHEREFORE, the CEI Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant their Special Motion to Dismiss and enter judgment in their favor dismissing the Complaint’s claims against Defendants Competitive Enterprise Institute and Rand Simberg with prejudice.
  • Amicus Curiae Dr

    Amicus Curiae Dr

    Nos. 14-CV-101 & 14-CV-126 IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS ________________________________ COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants, and NATIONAL REVIEW, INC., Defendant-Appellant, v. MICHAEL E. MANN, PH.D., Plaintiff-Appellee. ________________________________ On Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia Civil Division, No. 2012 CA 008263 B ________________________________ BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE DR. JUDITH A. CURRY IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS’ PETITIONS FOR REHEARING OR REHEARING EN BANC ________________________________ John J. Vecchione (D.C. Bar. #431764) Counsel of Record R. James Valvo, III CAUSE OF ACTION INSTITUTE 1875 Eye Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 499-4232 [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae January 25, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........................................ 2 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 3 I. SCIENTIFIC NORMS AND FIRST AMENDMENT JURISPRUDENCE BOTH EMBRACE THE VIEW THAT ROBUST DEBATE IS CRUCIAL TO TRUTH, PROGRESS, AND DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE. ................................................ 3 II. THIS COURT SHOULD NOT ALLOW DR. MANN TO USE LAWSUITS AS ANOTHER WEAPON TO HARASS AND SILENCE HIS
  • You Are Right. I Am ALARMED--But by Climate Change Counter Movement

    You Are Right. I Am ALARMED--But by Climate Change Counter Movement

    You are right. I am ALARMED – But by Climate Change Counter Movement Shraey Bhatia Jey Han Lau Timothy Baldwin School of Computing and Information Systems The University of Melbourne [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract German evolutionary biologist and physiologist Prof. Dr. Ulrich Kutschera told in an interview The world is facing the challenge of climate crisis. Despite the consensus in scientific com- that CO2 is a blessing for mankind and that the munity about anthropogenic global warming, claimed 97% consensus among scientists is a the web is flooded with articles spreading cli- myth. ... he rejected extremes, among them the mate misinformation. These articles are care- climate alarmists who predict a fictitious, immi- fully constructed by climate change counter nent earth heat death and thus practice a kind of movement (CCCM) organizations to influence religious cult. the narrative around climate change. We re- visit the literature on climate misinformation New Zealand schools to terrify children about in social sciences and repackage it to introduce the climate crisis. Who cares about education in the community of NLP. Despite consider- if you believe the world is ending? What will it able work in detection of fake news, there is take for sanity to return? Global cooling? An- no misinformation dataset available that is spe- other Ice Age even? The climate lunatics ... en- cific to the domain.of climate change. We try courage them to wag school to protest for more to bridge this gap by scraping and releasing ar- ticles with known climate change misinforma- action. tion.
  • AN EXPLORATORY STUDY of SCIENCE BLOGGERS Degree Candidate

    AN EXPLORATORY STUDY of SCIENCE BLOGGERS Degree Candidate

    ABSTRACT Title of Thesis: OPENING UP THE CONVERSATION: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF SCIENCE BLOGGERS Degree Candidate: Gregory Michael Masters Degree and Year: Master of Arts, 2013 Thesis Directed by: Dr. Carol L. Rogers Philip Merrill College of Journalism Over the past decade, science blogs have experienced tremendous growth and changes in organization, becoming an important part of what researchers have called the “evolving science media ecosystem.” This thesis explores the practices and perceptions of science bloggers through 20 in-depth interviews and through a review of the blogs themselves. The research suggests areas where this medium is having a unique impact on how science communication occurs. The interview results revealed that science bloggers are motivated mainly by enjoyment, have a wide variety of routines and reporting/writing processes, strive to incorporate a personal touch, and are very engaged with readers and fellow writers through social media. This research found that science blogs have important roles in complementing other forms of science communication, opening aspects of science to wider view, promoting conversations about science through blog comments and social media, and exploiting digital tools to enhance communication. OPENING UP THE CONVERSATION: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF SCIENCE BLOGGERS by Gregory Michael Masters Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts 2013 Advisory Committee: Dr. Carol L. Rogers, Chair Dr. Ira Chinoy Carl Sessions Stepp © Copyright by Greg Masters 2013 PREFACE As teenagers, my brother and I would often drive far into Western Maryland to escape the city lights, parking at the edge of fields in the middle of nowhere to lie on the hood and peer at the stars.
  • Good News for Greta and WEF on Climate from Friends of Science

    Good News for Greta and WEF on Climate from Friends of Science

    Friends of Science friendsofscience.org climatechange101.ca Press Release February 4, 2020 Good News for Greta and WEF on Climate from Friends of Science (Calgary, Alberta) Friends of Science Society in Canada has produced a new video on CLINTEL's climate intelligence letter to the World Economic Forum (WEF) entitled “Good News for Greta.” CLINTEL, the climate intelligence group of more than 800 international scientists and professionals, including Nobel award-winner Ivar Giaever, issued a new plain language climate science report, sent with a letter to Borge Brende, president of the World Economic Forum (WEF), explaining there is no climate emergency, a position supported by Friends of Science. Friends of Science Society has studied climate science and related energy policies since 2002 and the days of Kyoto. Then as now, the science is uncertain and no emergency foreseen, as explained by Dr. Madhav Khandekar. As outlined in a Jan. 2, 2020, Forbes article by Roger Pielke, Jr., the ‘climate catastrophe’ stems from an influential report funded by two ‘green’ billionaires, which misinterprets certain future climate simulations known as RCP 8.5 and RCP 2.6. Neither of these Representative Concentrated Pathways (RCP) are deemed to be accurate reflections of energy use, nor can they be compared as ‘choices’ since RCP 2.6 reflects a world with 3 billion fewer people. Pielke explains how the frightening but faulty “Risky Business” report interpretations and methodology uses the extreme and unrealistic RCP 8.5, and how this became embedded in scholarly works and media reports alike. Even Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, relied upon the faulty “Risky Business” report for his well-known “Tragedy of the Horizon” speech to Lloyd’s of London in 2015, just prior to the Paris COP21 conference.
  • Ed Wegman, Yasmin Said and Milton Johns Sue Me for $2 Million but at This Stage a Motion to Dismiss Cannot Argue Matters of Fact, Just Legal Reasons

    Ed Wegman, Yasmin Said and Milton Johns Sue Me for $2 Million but at This Stage a Motion to Dismiss Cannot Argue Matters of Fact, Just Legal Reasons

    Wegman, Said and Johns Sue Me For $2 Million Executive Summary MAS2015i 05/19/15 John R. Mashey1 The suits were badly written in many ways, rife with falsehoods and errors, Ed Wegman, Yasmin Said and Milton Johns Sue Me for $2 Million but at this stage a Motion to Dismiss cannot argue matters of fact, just legal reasons. On 04/17/15 my lawyers filed a strong, detailed Motion to Dismiss Executive Summary with Prejudice, which if accepted at hearing, would mean “don’t try again.” In December 2009, Canadian blogger Deep Climate (DC) started finding plagiarism in the 2006 Wegman Report (WR), which attacked the “hockey On 04/30/15, few days before the hearing, Johns filed voluntary stick” and authors Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcom Hughes. dismissals of their complaints, his last day at his own firm Day Johns, Based on those finds, in March 2010 Bradley lodged complaints against the where he had been since 2008. On 05/01/14 he joined Fluet Huber + Hoag. WR and a related paper with George Mason University (GMU). Later, I and At that stage, voluntary dismissal avoided “with prejudice” ruling and made others found more problems and reported them to GMU and journals. it harder to file a “frivolous lawsuit” claim. In March 2011, DC exposed pervasive plagiarism in a paper in Wiley’s Since court documentation is now public, that leaves on the record many WIREs:Computational Statistics journal. Soon after, similar or worse claims that I think are false, misleading or that fall far outside normal problems were found in a 2nd paper.